Re: Humans did not have gill slits


AndreVan wrote:
The following are not scientific mechanisms for the origin of all life
forms from a common primordial cell, and go against 'biological
evolution':
1.natural selection
2.random genetic mutations.

How do they "go against" biolgical evolution, since they seem to be
the explanation for it?


Natural selection:
A creationist, the chemist/zoologist Edward Blyth (1810-1873), wrote
about it in 1835-7, before Darwin, who very likely borrowed the idea
from Blyth.[ Taylor, I., In the Minds of Men, TFE Publishing, Toronto,
Canada, pp. 125-133, 1984.]

Are you suggesting that an idea is false because it had predecessors?


Organisms having an inheritable trait or character that gives it an
advantage in an environment over those who don't have the trait, will
have more chance of passing on the trait to future generations. Those
without the trait will not succeed in the population, an example is
Darwin's finches, where finches with a certain type of beak size
survived in an environment that suited the type of beak, as the
environment was dictating the type of food supply available.


Correct.

In this way organisms become more adapted to their environment, those
without the trait are eventually lost from the population.
What natural selection actually does is get rid of genetic variation in
a given population, and by definition it cannot cause anything new to
arise.

This will come as a surprise to all the geneticists, since natural
selection works on variation already in the genepool, new variation
which comes from mutations, and recombination of traits.

The price paid for adaptation, or specialization, is always the
permanent loss of some of the genetic information in that group of
organisms.

Stuff and nonsense. There are no genetics textbooks which claim this.
Do you have references to any research papers which established this?


In an information losing process such as adaptation, there is always a
limit to the amount of variation, as gene pools cannot keep on losing
their genetic information indefinitely, as can be seen by some
experiments with fruit flies, variation only went so far.

Variation only went for so long. How many decades do you think one
experiment can go on? Please explain what the mechanism is which
prevents mutation and selection from leading to ever-greater variation.
Also please make at least one reference to any study which suipports
this bizarre claim.


Scientists tested Drosophila birchii in the lab to see how quickly this
rainforest fly would be able to adapt to a dryer environment.
They exposed flies to desiccation (drying) stress until 80 to 90% had
died, and then bred from the survivors. The offspring were no better
than there parents at surviving drier-than-normal conditions. With
mounting surprise, the researchers repeated the process, for 30 cycles
over 50 generations, but still no increase in desiccation resistance.
Even after dry-stressing fresh batches of the flies from 4 separate
rainforest populations, the researchers noted that, "the most
resistant population lacks the ability to evolve further resistance
even after intense selection over 30 generations."

Cites? Did the researchers conclude that the species could never adapt?
Thirty generations is not very long.


Natural selection eliminates genes in a population. It cannot create
new ones.

Of course not. That's what mutations do.

This is noticeable in extreme environments, eg. In dry
conditions, flies that lose body moisture too quickly will die out and,
without offspring, their genes will be lost from that population. But
in a wet rainforest environment, there's no advantage in conserving
body moisture; what's needed is just the opposite; the ability to
withstand high humidity and the rampant diseases that thrive in such
conditions.

What happens in 30,000 generations? That's how long it took to go from
late homo erectus (almost modern human) to homo sapiens. Those were
minor changes.


Therefore Drosophila birchii populations have become highly adapted to
life in the rainforests, but it has come at a cost. The price paid for
such specialization is the permanent loss of genetic information useful
for survival in a drier environment.

That's why evolution would not go very far without mutations.
Mutations + natural (and other) selection.
Both.
Together.
As you have been told.


In contrast, the Drosophila flies (D. melanogastor, D. simulans, D.
serrata) from intermediate (less humid) environments still contain
sufficient genetic variation to enable the population to adapt to drier
conditions.
[Science 301(5629): 58-59 & 100-102, 2003.]
What we have here is a culling of genes already in existence. No new
genetic information was created, and the flies remained flies.

And the chickens remain chickens. But why do they have inactivated
tooth genes?


Darwin's Finches showed that adaptation and speciation may occur in a
couple of hundred years. What was observed with the finches was
variations in beak sizes due to environmental changes causing changes
in their diets. This is not "evolution" but adaptation,

Evolution is adaptation. The fossil record, the nested hierarchy of
mophology, genetics, behavior, and vestigial organs, all point to the
same thing. We understand a great deal about mutations. There is no
barrier in principle to variation. But natural selection can only work
on the mutation it gets, and 30 generations is not very long. Where did
those nameless scientists say that they had concluded this established
that all species, even fruit flies, had some sort of limit?

Are you seriously suggesting that mutations do not happen?

the finches
remained finches. The same loss of genetic information as with the
Drosophila flies occurs, a process in direct conflict with what
evolution of all life from a cell requires, because "molecules to
man" evolution requires massive amounts of new genetic code to be
added to an organism (and retained) that did not exist before. This is
a fact of science.

No, it's a reasonable supposition. And it happened. Not only the fossil
record, but the genetic code shows this. We see it in action. We know
how it (some of it, at least) happens. We have evidence, direct and
indirect that it happens all the time.


In a similar way dog breeders manipulate genes to breed new kinds of
dogs. Chihuahuas were bred by selecting the smallest dogs to breed from
over many generations. This was done by eliminating the genes for large
size. This type of breeding has separated genetic information from one
type of dog and another.

All observed examples of natural selection involve sorting or loss of
pre-existing genetic code (information);

Bull***.

Someone's been lying to you, and you don't care if it's right or not.
That's sad.

evolution requires new genes
with new information.

Yes. Mutations.

Neo-Darwinism requires that mutations can
generate this new information, but observed mutations have never been
shown to do so.

Sure they have. Can you cite a genetics text that say otherwise? Do you
have any research papers which indicate otherwise?

Natural selection and adaptation occur, but do not
support the hypothesis of all life evolving from a common cell at all,
even when we witness rapid organelle generation rates and adaptation.

There is no other testable explanation.


Natural selection is the effect the environment has on living forms,
selecting out life forms that are able to survive from those that
cannot handle their environment and therefore perish.

Correct. And because of mutations, natural selection has a constant
source of new material in a genepool.


The reason why Darwin was never elected to the prestigious Zoological
Section of the French Institute, was given by a member of the Academy
as follows:
"What has closed the doors of the Academy to Mr. Darwin is that the
science of those of his books which have made his chief title to
fame-the "Origin of Species," and still more the "Descent of Man," is
not science, but a mass of assertions and absolutely gratuitous
hypotheses, often evidently fallacious. This kind of publication and
these theories are a bad example, which a body that respects itself
cannot encourage."[From Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, D.
Appleton and Co., London, 2:400, footnote, 1911.]

Instead, strangely enough, they made him a member of the botanical
section:

http://www.darwin-literature.com/l_biography.html

"Charles Darwin was honoured by the chief societies of the civilized
world. He was made a knight of the Prussian order, ' Pour le
Mérite," in 1867, a corresponding member of the Berlin Academy of
Sciences in 1863, a fellow in 1878, and later in the same year a
corresponding member of the French Institute in the botanical section.
He received the Bressa prize of the Royal Academy of Turin, and the
Baly medal of the Royal College of Physicians in 1879, the Wollaston
medal of the Geological Society in 1859, a Royal medal of the Royal
Society in 1853, and the Copley medal in 1864. His health prevented him
from accepting the honorary degree which Oxford University wished to
confer on him, but his own university had stronger claims, and he
received its honorary LL.D. in 1877."


This is still true today; Neo-Darwinism and evolution in general
survive on philosophical speculation and assertions about the
historical past of life and the universe. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a
religion,

A curious religion, which not only has no temples, no holy texts, no
hymns, nor holy days, but also has as members Jews, Muslims,
Christians, Buddhists, Druse, Sikhs, Hindus, and atheists. Gosh - how
many other religions are Shi'ite Muslims and Baptist allowed to join?

partly born out of spiritism (the domain of the demonic spiritual realm)

Lies, slander, *and nonsense. Are you a willing servant of the Prince
of Lies, or simply a dupe?

and partly due to a disbelief in the Creator God.

And yet many thousands of evolutionary scientists are theists. Go
figure.

Like all science, evolutionary science has no concern with gods of any
sort.

Until your god is at a sceintist's beck and call, he is not the sort of
thing that can be studied.


Natural selection does not contradict creation it supports it. God
created various life forms to reproduce after themselves, this is what
we observe occuring today.

Yes, with the same variation you see in any child from his parents.
Evolution does not postulate generations showing greater changes than
what you see in church every Sunday - the day after Sabbath.

If a cat ever gave natural birth to a puppy, it would rock the world of
genetics.


"Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has
survived, not how it has evolved.

Really? Of course, there is genetic drift and sexual selection, but
somehow I suspect that's not what you mean. So what testable
alternative - which fits all the data - did you have in mind?


Genetic Mutations:
Random genetic mutations is not a mechanism for molecules to man
evolution.

Correct. It requires natural selection acting on random mutations.
Neither alone is sufficit\ent.

Chance random genetic mutations are central to evolution hypothesis,
however, genetic copying mistakes have never been observed to add or
create any new genetic information (code) to an organism. In no known
case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information (base
pairs). [Spetner, L.S., Not by chance!, The Judaica Press Inc., New
York, 1998.]


I would not deign to answer this myself, for I am no more of an expert
in genetics than you or Dr. Spetner are. But interested lurkers might
want to look at this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

Mutation rates per nucleotide per generation are very low. A mutation
is a random change in the nucleotides of a DNA molecule and occurs
during reproduction. They are small, random, and harmful alterations to
the genetic code.

Most mutations are neutral or minimally harmful. Some are very
benificial. They are the ones that spread rapidly thru the genepool.

You can change the gene frequency or the ratio of the genes that are
already present as much as you like, but unless you add new genes you
won't get 'molecules to man' evolution.

Right. That's why we need mutations.


<snip much, much more of the same>


The fact that it took considerable human intelligence, effort and time
to decode the genetic code (as in the human genome etc), how were these
very same DNA codes encoded in the first place without intelligence?

Chemistry and natural law.


The genetic code does not contradict God's creation and genetic
mutations do not contradict a fallen creation caused by Adam & Eve's
sin.

Many Christians do not thing evolution contradicts creation, since they
think all that is is God's creation. Some of them are scientists, who
seek to understand how he does things, rather than dictate to him what
he is allowed to do.


As biological evolution is claimed to be a 'scientific fact', what
other processes/mechanisms are then left for 'molecules to man
evolution' to be scientifically possible?

Eh? It's a little unclear what you are asking.


Evolution is a religion masquerading as science. More 'magic' is
required for evolution to generate life from non-life, than
evolutionists claim is required for supernatural creation. "God did
it" is just as (if not more) feasible than "abiogenesis did it".

So, you claim that God requires less belief than the chemistry and
physics we see every day.
You claim that God could not have done it in a way that displeases
you.
You assert that ordinary life processes as seen on any farm are
magical, but the existence of an unseen magical entity is more mundane?

Considering that we cannot prove that God does NOT exist,

Nor can we prove that leprechauns do not exist. Why do you bring this
up when discussing science? What does yaweh's existence or nonexistence
have to do with astronomy? With Chemistry? Evolution? Physics?

and the fact
that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to support evolution,

Which is, BTW, conclusive proof that you do not understand science.
Science never offers conclusive proof, only supporting evidence.

it is highly risky and careless to reject God and eternal life through
Jesus.

How risky is it to reject Mohammed as the last and greatest of the
prophets? Heretics will suffer more than mere atheists. Or, wait, I
know. You're religion is the right one because you were born into it.
Lucky you. All the other swho think like you - the Hindus, the
Muslims - they're going to Hell because they were born in the wrong
country, or the wrong century.


Once we physically die, we no longer have control over what we believe
and are at the mercy of whatever 'truth' waits for us on the other
side.

Earthworms? Oh, you mean...

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom
of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God
cometh not with observation:
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold,
the kingdom of God is within you.

To reject Jesus is to reject eternal life in God's new creation. You
remain dead in your sins and separated from your Creator, eternal
torture and suffering awaits you.

Yesh, yeah. Does eternal happiness require lying about science? What is
it about your faith that seems to need this constant assault on those
who seek to understand the world around us?


Are you prepared to take a chance on what awaits you on the other side
of death by putting your faith in evolution (naturalism) instead of
God?

The choice is between the evidence of the creator and the sermons of
your favorite preacher. Or the angry-sounding rants of a man who sold
you his last book.

"My friends, there's trouble in River City! That's trouble with a
capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for *pool!"


What are your reasons for rejecting the Genesis account of the origin
of everything?

What are your reasosn for rejecting the evidence of your eyes?


What scientific evidence makes the origin of all life today not
possible by God's creation account?

Evolutionary science say nothing about whether any gods are behind it.
Does God make it rain? If so, does that mean it has nothing to do with
condensation and evaporation, with temperature and wind?

Are there scientific experiments
to support this?


Yes.

Have scientists been able to devise an experiment to verify all present
life diverging from a common cell?

All tested and looked at so far, yes.

All we have are fingerprints, though. The videotape got lost :(

Kermit


.

Loading